This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

If the SCOTUS determined it was unconstituional it would not be permitted by law. The passage of DOMA, which codifies the non-recognition of SSM at the federal level, is evidence enough.

Laws have to be challenged before the SCOTUS is allowed to declare them constitutional or unconstitutional. If no one ever challenges the law, then the SCOTUS can't touch it, even if it is unconstitutional.

However, there are a lot of cases on their way up to the SCOTUS involving the constitutionality of DOMA. One of them is bound to hit the mark and take down DOMA. Hell, and even the SCOTUS gets things wrong. There have been several landmark cases in the past which overturned previous SCOTUS rulings.

Plus, remember when DOMA was passed, many states still had laws legally in place against sodomy and being gay.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

NP, you have been using this slippery slope argument for as long as I've known you at DP. It has been shown to be nothing but bunk many times in the past, and it is STILL nothing but bunk, today.

CC you are wrong. There are already groups in Utah lining up to see what happens on this issue. If gay marriage is approved why shouldn't they be allowed to marry 1 or a dozen partners. You don't want to discriminate against gays so how can you discriminate against them?

Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

CC you are wrong. There are already groups in Utah lining up to see what happens on this issue. If gay marriage is approved why shouldn't they be allowed to marry 1 or a dozen partners. You don't want to discriminate against gays so how can you discriminate against them?

Not every argument that applies to Same Sex Marriage applies to Multi-Person Marriage

The consitutional argument of Gender discrimination does not apply to Multi-Person Marriage as it does to Same Sex Marriage

While I agree, SOME arguments in favor of same-sex/gay marriage would be hypocritical to not also apply to Multi-person marriage...especially those who ignorantly try to argue that we shouldn't keep people from marrying the person they love. However, many of the ones that are used...and especially many of the constitutionally based ones...don't really apply to both cases.

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Laws have to be challenged before the SCOTUS is allowed to declare them constitutional or unconstitutional. If no one ever challenges the law, then the SCOTUS can't touch it, even if it is unconstitutional.

However, there are a lot of cases on their way up to the SCOTUS involving the constitutionality of DOMA. One of them is bound to hit the mark and take down DOMA. Hell, and even the SCOTUS gets things wrong. There have been several landmark cases in the past which overturned previous SCOTUS rulings.

Plus, remember when DOMA was passed, many states still had laws legally in place against sodomy and being gay.

DOMA was passed by 86 senators and signed by Clinton and so far it has held up pretty well as no gays that got married in a state where activist judges and not the people of the state approved gay marriage none can go to another state and have it recognized.

Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Originally Posted by Navy Pride

DOMA was passed by 86 senators and signed by Clinton and so far it has held up pretty well as no gays that got married in a state where activist judges and not the people of the state approved gay marriage none can go to another state and have it recognized.

14 of the original signers have since filed an amicus brief with the courts arguing that the law is unconstitutional and Clinton has recanted it. Not exactly a strong case for ya NP.

Originally Posted by Bucky

The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Not every argument that applies to Same Sex Marriage applies to Multi-Person Marriage

The consitutional argument of Gender discrimination does not apply to Multi-Person Marriage as it does to Same Sex Marriage

While I agree, SOME arguments in favor of same-sex/gay marriage would be hypocritical to not also apply to Multi-person marriage...especially those who ignorantly try to argue that we shouldn't keep people from marrying the person they love. However, many of the ones that are used...and especially many of the constitutionally based ones...don't really apply to both cases.

Like I said before there is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage and the originators would roll over in their graves if they knew the amendment was being used for this.

Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

Like I said before there is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage and the originators would roll over in their graves if they knew the amendment was being used for this.

If you want to talk about intent, then the 14th amendment was intentionally left broad so that it could be applied to future cases where people would try to discriminate against a minority. Protecting the rights of the minority from the majority has been an ideal since the founding fathers.

Originally Posted by Bucky

The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.